Could you correct yourself or are you too busy ruining my career?- Vanessa Grigoriadis September 16, 2017ītw the study is on pages 112, 115 and 116. If she read my book, which Im not sure she did, she would have learned that.- Vanessa Grigoriadis September 16, 2017Īnd I spoke with four experts about the study not one. … Which, according to Grigoriadis, was still wrong. Meanwhile, Goldberg told the Post that she’d “give a kidney and five years of my life to be able to go back and not write” the “not know this” line, and she posted a similar statement to Twitter Saturday evening.Ībout the current controversy /CQ9LGmGKSy- Michelle Goldberg September 16, 2017 “I do indeed reckon with this survey, and deeply, several times in the book,” she wrote to the Times’ standards editor, citing several examples of said reckoning. She showed that there is disagreement over whether the data are sound it is not the case that she gave the reader “no reason to believe” the statistics are wrong.Ĭertain phrases in the review were edited or removed altogether - “I’m not sure how anyone could write an entire book about the subject of campus rape and not know this” has been changed to “and not reckon with this,” and the parenthetical that followed - “(Grigoriadis gives the reader no reason to believe that the statistics from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network are wrong.)” - is gone.īut Grigoriadis took issue with the new wording, too. In addition, the review describes incorrectly Grigoriadis’s presentation of statistics from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. She does in fact write about Department of Justice statistics that say college-age women are less likely than nonstudent women of the same age to be victims of sexual assault it is not the case that Grigoriadis was unaware of the department’s findings. “She is not free to make demonstrably false statements that not only damage my book but my reputation and credibility as a reporter.”Īfter what we can only assume was a back-and-forth with Paul, the Times published the following note at the bottom of Goldberg’s review:Ī review on this weekend about “Blurred Lines: Rethinking Sex, Power and Consent on Campus,” by Vanessa Grigoriadis, refers incorrectly to her reporting on the issues. “Michelle is free to dislike my book,” she wrote in an email to Times book-review chief Pamela Paul, according to the Washington Post. “ Blurred Lines gives readers too many reasons not to trust it, even when perhaps they should.” “If you’re going to challenge people’s preconceptions, you have to have your facts straight,” Goldberg wrote. While Goldberg wrote that Grigoriadis - who is a former contributing editor to New York Magazine - “is terrific at capturing complicated personalities and subtle social dynamics,” she also accuses her of “baffling errors that threaten to undermine her entire book.” Among other things, she says Grigoriadis overlooked Department of Justice figures on rape victims - “I’m not sure how anyone could write an entire book about the subject of campus rape and not reckon with this” - and of misrepresenting the findings of a study from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN). A close look at the emerging culture around campus sexual assault, the book drew a scathing review from newly appointed New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg, whose own writing on sexual assault frequently appears in Slate. Journalist Vanessa Grigoriadis’s new book, Blurred Lines: Rethinking Sex, Power, and Consent on Campus, has only been out for a couple weeks, and it’s already tearing the niche world of feminist writers apart. Photo: Max Farago Courtesy of Michelle Goldberg Vanessa Grigoriadis is in a Twitter fight with Michelle Goldberg.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |